| OCR Text |
Show 430 REAUTHORIZING-TSfLA PROJECT Chairman Murdoch. Mr. Carson, you as an attorney have done the proper thing by reading from those basic laws. I am not an attorney, so I just wanted to get the thing down in plain, simple language so that I can be sure to understand it. Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdoch.. You have read appropriately almost the entire Santa Fe compact, at least the pertinent parts, and you have read most of the Boulder Dam Project Act and quoted from it quite liberally. Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdock. Do you regard the Santa Fe compact as a binding treaty between the basin States? Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Chairman Murdock. You regard the Boulder Canyon Project Act, an act of Congress, as the law of the river? Mr. Carson. As one of the instruments which together make the law of the river; yes. Chairman Murdock. You regard the California statute of limitation passed in 1929 as a condition leading up to the enactment of the Boulder Canyon Project Act as more than a statute; that it is a solemn pledge of a sovereign State in regard to this whole transaction ? Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Chairman, nobody contends otherwise. Chairman Murdock. But they might contend otherwise, and I see a possibility of such contention looming on the horizon. Is it not true that an act of the legislature can be superseded and repealed by a subsequent act ? Mr. Carson. Not in this particular instance; I think not in this instance, because by its terms it was made irrevocable and unconditional with the United States, for the benefit of the State of Arizona and the other basin States in consideration of the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which was passed. California has already received the consideration and I think can never avoid its limitation act. Chairman Murdock. Now, to go a little further, you spoke of apportioned water under the Santa Fe compact and surplus water. Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Chairman Murdock. What sections of the compact apportions water? Mr. Carson. Articles III (a), III (b), and III (c). Chairman Murdock. Ill (a) making an apportionment between the upper and lower basins? Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdock. Ill (b) adding an extra million to the lower basin ? Mr. Carson. Yes. Chairman Murdock. And III (c) having reference to Mexico? |
| Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |
